Tagged: Movies
Beasts vs. Bits, A Joint Movie Review of Beasts of the Southern Wild by Benh Zeitlin and Tron: Ares by Joachim Rønning
How does one land on 2012’s Beasts of the Southern Wild in 2026? Easy—if you’re a helicopter pilot.
Here’s how.
You call a friend, a fellow helicopter pilot, and while talking entertainment, he recommends True Detective (only S1). You watch it. During the call to discuss and thank for the recommendation, the conversation includes “really like the setting as character” and turns to Louisiana, and fears and love of that place. Next you recall that your friend has spent some time there because of “flying in the gulf”. Intermix some marriage and family chatter, mostly involving cross-cultural marriage, and the self-same friend mentions Beasts.
That said, here is what I sent him after my viewing.
1. Not in category of my “favorite movies” but definitely in category of “perfect movies”.
2. Can’t say I have ever seen a better performance by an actress than that girl.
3. I’ve been reading books on Jesus’ parables for a couple months now (on second book…) and this movie definitely fits as parable or allegory—but on steroids. It is amazing how many aspects of life it covers, and that I want to think more about all of them.
4. I think a lot about death and dying, and the lack of dignity we give it. The “plug you into a wall” line is the best summary of what is wrong with modernity’s handling of it that I have ever heard. And I cannot think of a better way to go than while holding someone I love.
Today I will add another thought I had—which will connect to Tron: Ares.
5. I love when a movie is clearly made by one and only one person. Beasts is so singular in its focus there is no doubt in my mind that we are watching a true artist at work—not the shapings a committee or AI.
Tron: Ares on the other hand is clearly, and unsurprisingly, the work of a ‘system’. The ‘system’ being the largest contributor to the death of art. Even when only one director is named, everyone (who cares) knows Mr. Fancy “O” didn’t make the movie he wanted to make. Instead, he made the movie he was allowed to make. Who gave him permission? Unspoken facial expressions. Indirect, latent meanings to rhetorical questions. The lowest common denominator of risk aversion. At every level, Tron: Ares was adulterated. I’m not trying to start a new conspiracy theory, but very really and truly Tron was made using the precise methods AI uses. Unfortunately for us, that is not how good art is made.
As far as the movie goes, the visuals were exactly what I wanted to see and watch. The jet ski chase seen being a definite win. The story was lame for anyone who knows the word that follows “paperclip” when talking about AI.
But the nuance I want to emphasize here is that Tron fails for every reason that Beasts succeeds, and yet Beasts is not made by Beasts.
In short, there is a terrifically false urban legend that tribal peoples have some great “lore” or stories from which they draw strength and unity of purpose and longevity. The sober truth is nothing could be farther from the truth. It is the leading civilizations, it is Western Civilization that has the great “lore” or stories from which we draw strength and unity of purpose and longevity.
To be clear, all that needs to occur for me to be proven wrong on this point is some tribe, be it one with truly no contact with modernity, or, say the Somalis, to make Tron: Ares. Or even the first Tron. Hell, I would happily recant if they used an ink pen of their own creation to write a story, or a Somali assault rifle to board a ship, or even musket in the case of piracy. But they don’t, won’t, and haven’t. This lack of good story is not the result of some external circumstances, it is the reason for external circumstances.
In using Somalis, I am not bashing some “race” here. I am merely making the point that even the film and story Beasts, for all its Beast-y-ness is not being told by its own protagonists, unless we alter it to the most metaphorical sense, more like “beast mode.” Instead, it is being told by Western Civilization. The strength of the story is contained in its unflinching depiction of truth, which includes some welcome criticism of WC.
If there is one feature that primitive peoples and the communists behind Disney movies share, it is that in storytelling, success aligns perfectly with honesty.
Nearly Unremarkable, My Review of “One Battle After Another”, By PTA
Solon’s sentiment (provided by Plutarch, circa 100 AD) is my entire review.
But to add one additional measure to Solon’s opinion, I would say, “The opening scene made me think, ‘I don’t want my kids to know I watched this garbage.’”
I share that not because I am going to fulfill my feeling, but because the only other movie that provokes me so was Babylon and its elephant opening.
PTA has obviously earned a hearing, but, unlike his others, this movie has too many flaws to be anything more than a “sign of the times”.
Agent K vs The Protagonist, A Joint Review of Men in Black and Tenet
I’m kinda loving my life right now. I recently rewatched Men in Black and just now finished Tenet. What do these two Science Fiction thrillers have in common, you ask? And is it true, Pete?
They both repeatedly make the point that the general mass of humanity doesn’t want to know how close the total mass of humanity is to annihilation at any given moment.
Who tells us this? And on whose authority?
Agent K and The Protagonist. Because they are the engines of hope.
Finally, are they right? Is it true? Is the world on the brink of annihilation and do people, generally, not want to know it?
Yes, with the caveat that “the brink of annihilation” can be taken to mean the whole enterprise OR simply one person’s death.
In other words, from the perspective set forth by Jesus’ Good Samaritan story, which includes the claim: “I am neighbor”, it doesn’t matter what happens to the world’s occupants once I am dead. What matters is that my ability to contribute to the world died. Here I mean to enlarge the defense of the concept of “not wanting to know” to include “because people, generally, also are not wanting to neighbor”.
Full-circle: Agent K and The Protagonist are certainly engines of hope for life, just as is the Good Samaritan. The key behavior among all three is proper action despite desperate circumstances.
The new question is, “Is there any reason to believe life extends beyond death?” And, if so, should we act according to that belief?
The CIA Asset Theory is Betarded!
This post is for those who can picture “Desh”. Do you know which “Desh” I mean, after only reading the title and opening line of this post? That’s right. I knew you did.
Now picture Jason Bourne. Got them? How about Clive Owen? And the asset turned Horse-guy from Rohan? Can you picture James Bond? How about Ethan Hunt? Jack Ryan? Jack Bauer?
Seriously, all you conspiracy theory wackos. You want me to believe that the CIA has fat assets dressed like DJ Kaled? Give me a break.
Before ‘Nam, the assets were exclusively white. After ‘Nam, they course-corrected to Desh as the archetype for obvious reasons. Hollywood over Talking Heads, any day.
I’m Terrified of Top Gun 3 and Heat 2
For the record, while my feeds are abuzz with Heat 2 casting news and resultant excitement, I am terrified. The reason I am terrified is that nothing in Heat says “sequel”. And the entire point of Heat is to capture at the premier level the modern “Cops and Robbers” game.
The world has changed and while a new “cops and robbers” game is surely possible, it cannot have any ties to a previous game. Like, “Nerd alert! Johnny Law here wants to use the rules from last game!” Also, Mann used the whole “bank’s money” line from Heat in Public Enemies already. A third delivery will make him truly a contender for “one trick pony”. Add to this that Blackhat and Ferrari, while adored by yours truly—especially Blackhat—were panned or ignored by general audiences. This means the train has left the station. Michael Mann’s star (he is my favorite direct and it does not pain me to say this) has fallen.
The path Mann should now follow is to become a film critic who harshly condemns every attempt at film (most are terrible these days) until he irritates the right director into producing something great and classic.
Re: TG3, I cannot say I have ever finished a movie thinking “I cannot wait for the sequel” more than Top Gun. Similarly, I cannot say that anyone I ever heard talk about TG:Maverick after the credits rolled said, “I cannot wait for the sequel.” The entire success of Maverick was “satisfaction of audience’s hyper-specific needs.” There is no chance of accomplishing the same feat again as our needs are met. We are fat and happy. As Papa once told me, the Ghanans, upon completion of a feast, lovingly rub their bellies and ponder, “Why did I get married?”
To both movies, I say, “No, no, no. Thank you but no thank you. Please take it away. I am full.”
“Low IQ”, Review of “House of Dynamite, by ZDT Chick
Who can forget Hurt Locker? And I have commented elsewhere that Zero Dark Thirty is genuinely remarkable. It’s not a secret that I generally despise movies made by streamers, but for these two portfolio-ck reasons, I held out hope that House of Dynamite would be excellent.
To be sure, it passes the time. That’s the main requirement I have for movies these days. And it succeeds in passing the time divertingly. I’m actually surprised how late it got without me noticing.
But in the time that passed between when the project started to the time it was released, we have seen a tremendous shift in the decisiveness of American leadership at the top. So the whole movie feels less than excellent.
There is a fairly viral video of candidate Trump, and his team at the time, watching the DNC Harris speech together, wherein we got to see an intimate portrait of these people at work. If you haven’t watched it, here’s a link to one dude’s clip of it.
The overall point is, politics aside, the man running the show is decisive. Sure, TACO is a real criticism on some level, but it’s difficult to measure because it is reasonable that many TACO events are only TACO-narrative-feeders if the timeline is the incorrect length. Not to mention, TACO is more about matching talk to walk, not walk as opposed to stay still. Or “paralysis by analysis” as some pilots would say.
For this movie review’s point, which is inescapably a review of the concept of reacting to a nuclear attack on America, President Trump and his team—again, regardless of the politics—will be decisive and with a speed that impresses even “high functioning” people. This belief was actually comforting during the film.
In short, while Bigelow’s movie intends on illustrating that Earth truly is a house of dynamite—the description is not merely a metaphor—it fails. This is because the leaders—metaphorical fathers?—in the film are portrayed as “indecisive and low IQ”. (Except the interrogator guy from ZDT. He gets my vote for who should be in charge.)
Put another way, could someone please make a movie based on the exact same scenario, but show how it would play out when decisive leaders are in charge? That version would be far more interesting to see. And it would naturally offer an actual answer to the still-compelling question, “Do we live in a house of dynamite?”
Rapid Fire Movie Reviews, The Order, 65, 28 Weeks Later
The Order with Jude Law, on Hulu, is pretty fantastic. But turn it off before you start seeing the black screen “wrap up facts”. Trust me.
65, with the new Star Wars bad guy, is not about only him on a violent planet. I hate when they mess up the previews. I’m talking from the opening scene you‘re struck by the fact that the movie is not what the previews made it out to be. On the whole, the very idea of people marooned on killer, dinosaur infested planet Earth while the dinosaur-killing asteroid is visibly on its way is kinda a cool story. Add in some language barrier stuff and other family interest moments and it really isn’t a bad sci-fi flick. Just very poorly marketed.
28 Weeks Later is old, but it is still fantastic. The best part—and now I am really looking forward to the newest one—is the speed which the virus infects the new zombie. It is nearly instantaneous. This got me thinking though.
Is the novel speed concept an analogy for the times we live in? I’m not saying the writers intentionally meant to make an analogy. I mean more like in the sense that it was inescapable. Like how 80s movies had muscular military men instead of breathy and broken women saving the day.
I am talking about politics and education.
We seem to be living in a time when everyone makes up their mind instantly, and then attacks incessantly. And no one ever changes their mind.
TDS strikes and BOOM! You won’t talk to your parents.
MAGA hits and BAM! No more chatting with your brother.
Follow me?
Compare this rage virus zombie tale to, say, any movie which portrays leprosy, or other old and slow moving diseases and what is the difference? The time period. No rapid rage virus zombie conversions in the dark ages or period pieces. And no slow leper death scenes in air conditioned rooms with laptops and Twinkies.
Just something for your consideration as the winter and family meals approach.
In the end, there are three lessons to be learned from these movies.
Number 1. Do not read The Turner Diaries.
Number 2. Do not become a pilot if the reason you are doing so is to save your daughter’s life.
Number 3. Do not make out with your long lost wife whom you thought you saw die from a zombie attack—at least not until the military doctors clear her.
Super?man, A Review of Superman by James Gunn
[SPOILERS] Shortly before the final action sequence, I had the thought, “Well, I can tell my folks that they don’t need to see this.” I think this thought came through because I had previously sent them the trailer, accompanied by some of my excitement and the thought that someone had made a superhero movie which they could enjoy in the classic sense.
My question-mark-bedecked title is not questioning whether the movie is in fact a Superman movie, but mean to indicate my questioning why Mr. Gunn thought it would be a good idea to make Superman hated and weak for so much of the movie.
I liked the “Superman lost his first fight” opening. Plenty of places to take that etc. But shortly thereafter, and for most of the rest of the movie, Superman lost and was weak and hated by mankind. It lasted for far too much of the run time. I wanted to see Superman, not not-Superman. Get me?
I want really difficult achievements being accomplished with ease. I want some seemingly morally challenging situations resolved by doing the obviously right thing. I want some scenes where he is completely absorbed in fighting one bad guy who wants to hurt general earthlings and then another bad guy appears out of nowhere holding Lois or Martha or John (Jimmy and Perry are also available), and Superman triumphs over both bad guys all while saving all strangers and friends/family alike by a tremendous act of sheer will, that again, confirms what we all already knew was the absolutely right decision.
For me, Superman’s actual unique power is his inhuman consistency in doing (all) the right thing(s) in the ethical dilemmas mankind’s best minds have developed to date. I know that this isn’t always the case in the comics. But I also know that you agree with me.
And the simple fact is this movie, while drawing out some unforeseen and difficult to achieve emotional responses from me (it was touching), did not inspire me, did not give me hope.
So, Mom and Dad, you’re better off with whatever memory you have of Superman—which is sad.
To end on a positive note, Kansas and the Kansans were great. The actor cast as the dad is one of my favorites, though I only really know him from The Legend of 1900. But that is enough for me and now with this and that, I am especially a fan.
A “Perfect 10” Day
There’s scene in the infamous Nick Cage film “Con Air” where a someone reads a letter from his kid which includes childlike exuberance at all the synchronicity that is unfolding. Something like, “Today is my birthday. Today is my dad’s birthday. Today is the day my dad gets out of jail. Etc etc.”
Heartwarming stuff.
Today, I feel exactly like that kid. It’s going to be a great day!
This is due to the fact that I am about to finish the last 70 odd pages of the 10th Volume of the 10 Volume Gateway to the Great Books series! And today’s date is the 13th, which is 3 plus…10! And right now we’re in the…10th hour of the day! And the authors of the day all once were 10 years old!
On The Highly Placed Women Of Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning
The only criticism I dared mention to my group after the movie (it was midnight and we were tired) was, “I think they went a bit overboard on the ‘women as leaders’ part. I mean the President, the aircraft carrier boss, the president’s close friend/cabinet member, both Osprey pilots, and even a Navy SEAL with the biceps of a 15 year old boy. It was a bit much.”
For this blog, forget the twin aspects of whether women should be in those roles and whether women ever would be in all those roles together. Instead, consider the following.
Before AI, Hollywood didn’t make movies with that many women in leadership roles.
In other words, the rise of Hollywood’s portrayal and seeming belief that it is important and necessary to portray women in leadership roles if we want women to actually be accepted as leaders across the board, but especially in areas that are traditionally male dominated, has come about at precisely the same time that AI is “taking over”.
Coincidence?
Irrelevant?
Boring to consider?
Or maybe there is fruit in the consideration of just how this pairing happened and its meaning—especially if men invented AI.
Just thoughts.
Captain’s Log 